Slashdot Mirror
Midsize Businesses Not Considering Linux?
LukePieStalker writes "eWeek is running a
piece
about a research report which concludes that Linux is not even
on the radar screen for midsize businesses. The survey involved
over 1,400 executives of companies with annual revenue around $250 to
$500 million. It seems that, while smaller companies may see the
licensing savings as being significant, and larger companies have
the expertise to manage it, bringing Linux into a midsize Windows
shop creates a multiplatform organization which is prohibitively
complicated and expensive to manage. Unfortunately, companies of
this size comprise the bulk of American business. Quote: "Linux is
free, but the support for it is not.""
FTA: "But, in the midsized companies, adding Linux would create a multiplatform company where a Microsoft-only shop existed previously."
Keep in mind, while medium sized businesses may "comprise the bulk of American business", this is only the current situation. As smaller businesses grow, there will be an influx of Linux based organizations in the medium-sized business world. Adding Linux to a Windows based infrastructure is inherintly more expensive (because you have to pay for the upkeep of two systems). But a computing infrastructure based entirely on Linux is, as far as I know, cheaper in the long run.
Also, as Linux becomes a better candidate for a desktop platform, its adoption as a viable computing platform will only increase. The state of Linux is, now, significantly more advanced than it was just 2 years ago. 2 years from now, even more so.
Digital Sailor
"- Only 27 percent of respondents currently have Linux installed.
- Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux.
- Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure."
So to sum it up, 27 percent already use Linux and of those who don't more than half are interested in it, while an other 15 percent are not sure.
How someone can conclude that this means midsize bussinesses are not considering Linux is beyond me.
Before any more people go and post about how calling Microsoft for support costs money, please remember the following:
1) If the place is a Microsoft shop with a bunch of servers 10-20+, they're most likely a Microsoft Certified Partner who get X amount of free trouble support requests per year. And if YOU solve the trouble shooting or if you bring a question to them that there is NO way you could know or find the answer to, they do not charge/deduct credits. As long as you've done your research and have tried everything to fix the problem, you're most likely not going to be charged.
2) "Support" isn't just calling Microsoft. It also consists of paying on-staff administrators to support everything. The admin(s) that are currently there, if it's a Microsoft shop, are probably MCSA/MCSE's and most likely not that well trained in Linux. For a mid-size business, a salary of 40-60K for another admin is probably a very prohibitive expense.
Reading the replies so far, I can't help but wonder, why do people try so hard to spin any survey results that look bad for Linux? You don't see this in Windows articles or other topics regarding other competing operating systems. But when an article is posted that reveals that the Linux movement isn't 100% full-steam-ahead in all ways, everyone starts splitting hairs. "It said IT executives, not sysadmins!" Well, who do you think the sysadmins are working for?
A lot of these places have systems they have been using for a decade or more. It's going to take a while for them to "see the light" so to speak and just convert everything over to Linux when whatever works for them...still works for them. Seriously, why should they switch if they are happy with what they've got?
I suspect most of the disinterest in Linux stems from the fact they already have systems in place that work for them. However, small businesses would be more interested in Linux because of price, and large businesses because of price and platform. Mid-size businesses don't have the resources to switch everything over, but have enough to have already chosen a system previously that still works fine.
I imagine if you did this same survey with other operating systems like, say, Windows Longhorn, you'd find that mid-sized businesses are pretty much disinterested in it too--why switch from what they've got? In other words, not necessarily anything to do with Linux specifically. Any switch of systems is going to require a support cost, not just Linux.
One particular scenario was a firewall. I suggested a Linux firewall due to the lower upfront cost. Now, there were a Microsoft shop, but a firewall is not something that has to be administered everyday (when it is working properly). Instead they decided to go with a Checkpoint firewall that cost them a hell of a lot more.
Here's the problem: A firewall today is not just about "Linux kernel + iptables." Those Checkpoint boxes (and others) are full featured "security appliances" as they call them. They have features such as:
- application proxies to filter / virus-scan / monitor content: HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc. (so you can say.. stop employees in the sales dept. from playing games on Pogo during 9-5.. to give an example of the granularity of control available)
- network monitors and various intrusion detection / prevention methods
- complete mobile VPN services, including dynamic firewalling rules
- user authentication services (used for VPN, proxies, replication to other network services, etc.)
- very complete GUI admin tool / management console. (and multiple security devices can be linked together throughout the company..)
- daily automated security updates (virus updates, IDS signatures, firewall software updates, etc.)
Can you do that all with free Linux distros and available OSS tools.. Mostly. Will you be saving any money by the time you've got all the raw materials kludged together into a working solution? Nope.
The Open Source community has failed miserably at producing real-world solutions. It has produced an enourmous amount of quality raw material. (And if you examine the commercial firewall solutions, you'll find much OSS being used internally!)
I think there is a good solution to this: The major free Linux/BSD distros need to have subprojects focused on specific needs. For example, there should be a "Debian/Firewall" sub-distro. (note: not a fork) It should provide a more or less ready-out-of-the-box firewall solution using pre-integrated "best of breed" components from the base Debian distro. If there are shortcomings discovered, the improvements can be fed back into the base distro using standard processes. If there are flaws found in the raw materials, this is a perfect way to make sure that OSS meets real world needs through user feedback.
Now apply this principle to all major areas of network services.. mail servers, file servers, web servers, etc. As long as there is a decent web based admin interface, there will be no problem getting organizations full of Windows-only IT staff to use more OSS. (And meanwhile all the old-school Unix folks are squirming in their seats.. Sorry folks, I don't like it either, but sometimes pragmatism is required. There simply aren't enough smart Unix people to go around. So we either compromise or we let proprietary software continue to dominate the industry.)